I agree with "the main aim should always be to preserve the original meaning of the data, not to accidentally change it by imposing a schema that is too rigid", but I do not agree that the original meaning of the data has been preserved by aliasing it to two identifiers.
Anyone who used the original identifier undoubtedly had one of those two identifiers in mind, but we have not clarified the intended meaning through this process. I'm sorry I missed this topic first time around, and it isn't worth getting up in arms about, but the original term has a clearly different meaning and application than either of its referenced replacements. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/132#issuecomment-398478039
